Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Root of the Republican Party's Agenda

Yes! I am a

for opposing the Republican Party or GOP....The Grand old fucking Party!!!!!! There I said it....don't waste your email saying so...
-------------------------------
------------------------------

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. In their abuses of power, they have even used threats and military violence to thwart the Democrat Party’s attempts to make this a progressive country. As you read the following Republican atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
But First You must understand how the Republican Party changed its colors in the 60s...and How the Lincoln's Republican Party was really today's Democrats...
Read This to understand: Southern Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

and this: Southern Democrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
and this: Dixicrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Strategy behind State Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights_(speech)

March 20, 1854
Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party
---------------------------


---------------------------
May 30, 1854
Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

June 16, 1854
Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

July 6, 1854
First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

--------------------------
--------------------------
February 11, 1856
Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856
First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

--------------
-------------

March 27, 1856
First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies


May 22, 1856
For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857
Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857
Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

----------------------------------------


----------------------------------------
October 25, 1858
U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860
Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862
President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade
----------------

----------------
April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862
U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 19, 1862
Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862
Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect
--------------------
--------------------
February 9, 1864
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864
Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864
Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864
African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865
Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

June 19, 1865
On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation
-----------------------
-----------------------
While researching Juneteenth, I found almost no mention of the troops under Union general Gordon Granger, who were sent to Galveston to ENFORCE the ban on slavery. History revisionists would have you believe that General Granger was a glorified messenger boy. But he was the Union general put in charge of Texas. When he read the Emancipation Proclamation in Galveston, he was also reading the riot act, and he rode ahead of enough troops to put down any resistance. The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect two-and-a -half years earlier and the Civil War had been over for two months. It is absolutely unbelievable that Texas slaveholders -- or Texas slaves -- would have been totally ignorant of this. I mean, Texas isn't the name of another planet. They had telegraphs and newspapers and word of mouth. They didn't need a Union general to inform them of world events. A messenger who was sent to Texas to inform people of emancipation was killed. It is thought the plantation owners wanted their slaves for one more harvest.Astoundingly, the Democrats seem to have hijacked this day as their own. What follows is a statement that was posted on a Juneteenth Web site a few years ago.


Washington, D.C. - Democratic National Committee (DNC)Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement in commemoration of Juneteenth."This Saturday, Democrats across America will celebrate the anniversary of Juneteenth, the country's longest-running observance of the abolition of slavery."Juneteenth is a celebration of liberty, as we remember that day in 1865 when the news of emancipation finally reached the slaves of Galveston, Texas - two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. On that day, slavery was finally eradicated from our country's shores and a new sense of hope had been achieved for the entire nation."139 years after that historic day, the Democratic Party remains committed to fighting for equality in our schools, our workplaces, and in our neighborhoods to ensure an equal opportunity for all Americans."
Scuse me?? The Democratic Party remains committed to fighting for equality? When the did this happen? Wasn't it the Democratic Party that fought on the side of slavery? Wasn't it the Democratic Party that fought against EVERY attempt to institute equality in our schools, our workplaces and our neighborhoods, right through the 1964 Civil Rights Act? At what point in our history did the Democratic party -- the party of slavery, the party of segregation, the party of the Ku Klux Klan -- become this nation's champion of liberty?Talk about an Extreme Makeover! By the way, you won't find a statement from the head of the RNC on that site. Apparently, the Republican party had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
--------------------------
--------------------------
December 6, 1865
Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
-------------------------
-------------------------
April 19, 1866
Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman's Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866
Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866
Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
---------------------------
---------------------------
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868
Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

September 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
-------------------------
-------------------------
September 28, 1868
Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868
Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
----------------------
----------------------

May 19, 1870
African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871
Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

-----------------------
-----------------------
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
-----------------------
-----------------------
September 20, 1876
Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

July 14, 1884
Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890
Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892
In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
----------------------
----------------------
December 11, 1895
African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896
Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898
Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900
Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

---------------------
---------------------
October 16, 1901
President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912
African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916
Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

--------------------------
--------------------------
April 18, 1920
Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
----------------------


----------------------
December 8, 1924
Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942
60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman's surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that "[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."


February 18, 1946
Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952
Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953
Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954
Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956
On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958
President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959
President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960
At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963
Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964
The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965
Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970
In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971
Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999
Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003
Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004
Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”

* * *

There you have it. What a different country this would be, had not Republicans blocked the agenda of Democrats every step of the way. But this evil organization is far from through. Now, they want to give education vouchers to public school children, so kids of every race and class can attend private schools of their CHOICE. Where will we get our garbage collectors, dishwashers and ditch diggers if blacks, Hispanics and white trash have access to a good education? They are trying to stop undocumented immigration, meaning the cheapest labor Democrats have had since the days of slavery will be taken away. They are trying to end segregation and slavery all over again!

And in true Republican tradition, they just can't stop poking their nose into other people's business, trying to destroy a woman's right to choose. They are trying to crush the secret vision of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who once said, ""We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"

Is there NO end to the freedoms these fascists will try to destroy?! No matter how many lies must be told, no matter how many schoolchildren must be mis-educated, no matter how many elections must be rigged, THE REPUBLICANS MUST BE STOPPED!

Monday, June 21, 2010

California Republican Marilyn Davenport says out loud what Republicans are saying within their circle.


The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling on the resignation of a California Republican who sent out an email depicting President Barack Obama as a monkey.

Marilyn Davenport’s message included an image of three monkeys dressed and posing as a family. The face of the smallest animal was replaced with that of the president. The email read, “Now you know why no birth certificate.”

“What she said was downright ugly. She has had a totally unrepentant attitude and she should go immediately,” Al said.

Although Marilyn has apologized, Al and others do not believe it expressed adequate remorse.

“I am an imperfect Christian lady who tries her best to live a Christ-like, honoring life. I would never do anything to intentionally harm or berate others regardless of ethnicity. So I ask for your forgiveness, for I am truly sorry,” said Marilyn, who claims she only forwarded the email to friends she didn’t think would be offended.

Marilyn has no plans to leave her position. “I will not resign my Central Committee position over this matter that the average person knows and agrees is much to do about nothing,” she said.

Al is not the only person calling for Marilyn’s resignation. The Orange County Ethics Committee is investigating the incident, according to RadarOnline. However, that’s not to suggest she’s been completely ousted by her party.

“The Marilyn Davenport I know is actually a lovely and sweet woman, and I doubt that she is a racist. ... Sadly, she does not understand the gravity of the offense,” said Orange County Republican Party Chair Scott Baugh.

Second Life’s Amsterdam Snapped Up on eBay

A "recreated" version of Amsterdam on Second Life sold today for $50,000 on eBay. The recreation includes, of course, Amsterdam’s free-wheeling Red-Light District, where plenty of activities are, well, available.

In real life, Amsterdam is a neat place except for the outdoor urinals and the renegade scooters waiting to crash into oblivious tourists like myself. Here’s hoping the Second Life version never gets quite that realistic. (Although if visitors can run into the queen at the local patisserie, as a friend of mine did recently, that would be nifty.)

By the way, Regina Lynn is taking a few days off but she’ll be back soon. Keep a lookout for her weekly column: She’s interviewing Second Life/Amsterdam creator Stroker Serpentine.

What is a Pulsars?




Pulsars are the products of colossal star explosions. When a star about ten times the size of our Sun dies, it undergoes an ejection of its “mantle” in a great supernova explosion, leaving the highly magnetized and compressed nucleus of the star behind. The nucleus left behind may become what you see above—a pulsar; a rotating neutron star.

Although pulsars are only about the size of a city, pulsars are incredibly dense, possibly having as much material as our Sun. Pulsars don’t actually “pulse”, rather, they appear to pulse due to what is known as the “lighthouse effect”. Huge beams of radiation are ejected from the magnetic axis of the pulsar. These glaring emissions are only visible to us when they are pointed straight at the earth, giving the pulsar an appearance of pulsation.

One of the most impressive facts about pulsars is that, because of their incredible density, their rotational periods are extremely swift and extremely precise. Most pulsar rotational periods are anywhere from a few seconds to a few milliseconds!

(gif source)

Sunday, May 9, 2010

TEA PARTY RACISM IS LIABILITY WHITE AMERICA CAN'T AFFORD

By Kris Broughton



It looks like the mainstream media has finally decided to quit ignoring the rancid stench of race based hatred that fuels a lot of the anger behind the Tea Party movement. I guess the media thinks now that they deserve a pat on the back for taking an entire year to conclude what the blogosphere picked up on instantly—that the idea of a black man as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has caused a vocal subset of white America to lose their minds.
If the media really wanted to make amends, it would give all the money it made from the increased viewership they got when they elevated this trumped up abomination of a political movement to center stage for months on end to HBCU’s. If the media really wanted to make amends, it would include minorities from diverse backgrounds, and not just their darker skinned fraternity buddies from Yale and Harvard and Columbia, at the editorial table, the place where the decisions are made about who should be covered, why they should be covered, and what slant should be applied to said coverage.
Even now, when the Tea Party representatives are being featured on cable news networks, not one program producer in the entire country can find the gumption and the hour or two it would take to get their staffers to put together a three minute video that alternates between photos of White Citizens Council protestors of in the 60’s and Tea Party protestors in 2010 that they could run for their Tea Party guests before asking for an explanation on camera. How hard is that? How hard is it to ask point blank questions? Did Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes have his style of questioning copyrighted so no one else in the media can badger an interview subject when the answers they give are weak or ridiculous, or totally refute reality?




There are still quite a few white people in this country who aren't willing to accept a black man as their president. The black bogeyman, as we’ve seen this past year, is still one of the most powerful agitators in the business of politics. But the Tea Party leaders have finally had to come to grips with reality—with the fact that publicly hating black people for no other reason than they are different looking has been out of style for some time. By tolerating abject racial bigotry among its ranks, the Tea Party has forced white people with good sense to start thinking about how much of a liability it can be to be associated with them.
It seems to be the kind of liability white people with good sense cannot afford to keep in the new millennium.

Monday, May 3, 2010

A Good Slave Contract by Tanonymous

SM Relationships: A Good Slave Contract
My personal definition of a "good" slave contract is not the only one in the world or even necessarily the best one for you. It does include a few criteria that I have seen in every working, happy, healthy, functional, long term BDSM relationship I have personally lived with or known of. They're pretty simple and basic, and they tend to apply to relationships outside of BDSM as well in my experience.
Which is something we occasionally forget as a group; many of the basic needs and expectations in a vanilla romantic relationship will still be present in even the most extreme BDSM relationship. We're different, but not entirely immune.
Here are my observations for what makes a "good" slave contract and a practical basis for a working, long term BDSM relationship:
1. Realism and honesty - both parties are experienced enough to know that they can actually live with these things they have contracted to on a day to day basis, or at least honest enough to admit to each other that they are exploring their limits. There is no wishful but unrealistic fantasy in the contract that one or both of them is likely to fail to live up to on a practical level. In other words, when these promises are made, they are made on the basis of good self knowledge and complete self honesty.
Note that what is unrealistic for Novice Submissive X may be barely adequate maintenance for Experienced Slave Y aka "Old Leatherbutt", who really does want the severe daily whippings outlined in the slave contract. However, Dominant Sadist A may be delightedly capable of administering these whippings, while Owner B may well burn out on the same steady diet.
The "good" slave contract takes into account the needs, desires and limitations of both partners.
2. Compatibility of desires - both partners are genuinely happy with the conditions as set forth; one is not attempting a total, core level change of his or her psyche just to please the other, unless that is specifically what he or she desires and chooses to aim for in submission.
In other words, fetishists and masochists don't always make for good long term partners if some critical element of desire is absent from the other partner and the motions are gone through just to please.
Promising to do something in a slave contract that you really, truly have no interest in doing makes for potential obstacles ahead. Which can be worked through with time and patience, but it can be a rough road.
3. Solid experiential basis - Many working sets of rules and slave contracts I know of in relationships were consolidated after the fact and not before.
In other words, the partners got together, put together through trial and error the rules and conditions that worked for them, and only then wrote them up as a formal contract.
The main exception to this rule I have personally observed is where an experienced dominant (or sometimes an experienced submissive) has a working slave contract that sie has lived with successfully in the past with other partners, and it is adapted to the new relationship.
A set of slave rules or a contract that is used as the core trust basis of a relationship tends not to work as well in my experience if it is more of a list of New Year's resolutions of what you want to have in the relationship rather than a practical model of what already works for you. New Year's resolutions can get broken and laughed off. Core level trust can't. Know the difference.
4. Openness for re-negotiation - Some couples I know read their contract over on a yearly, twice yearly or even monthly basis, and renegotiate what is and isn't working. Sometimes changes are made, sometimes they aren't; but a contract that does not take into consideration the changing needs and circumstances of two growing people is more likely to break than to flex and survive.
Sample circumstances in which a contract might need to change: illness or accident leading to disability, the birth of a child, gaining or losing a job or income, uncovering or working through emotional traumas, a change in living circumstances, etc.
Ignoring these things and trying to live by rules that have been severely impacted by lifestyle changes is less likely to work than a simple renegotiation - or in the case of a TPE, unilateral decision to change the conditions of the relationship according to the new circumstances as necessary.
A corollary to being open for re-negotiation is input from both partners. In the case of a TPE, the submissive partner does not have any decision making power per se over the new circumstances of the relationship, but a responsible dominant will be taking input from the slave in any case by hir assessment and judgement.
These criteria for a working slave contract aren't so very different from the expectations in a completely vanilla marriage - honesty, realism, compatibility, listening to your partner and being willing to negotiate.
One of the unwritten and damaging myths in our community (along with the existence of a One True Manual Of Proper Slave Positions) is that since we are so different from the vanillas, we can throw out all the old rules and expectations entirely.
Certai nly we can modify them to suit our needs as BDSMr's, but when we discard the most basic principles of human relationships and claim that there are no rules at all that apply to us, we do so at our own peril.

Main | Essays and Thoughts About WIITWD | Beginning BDSM Lifestylers

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Gorean Training for the modern wife

There is a world called Gor, or counter earth. It came into being when John Norman made it the center of his series of 26 books (and one unpublished book) during the '70s. Nowadays, these books can be bought at second hand bookstores or online at selected Gor sites. I must admit that I have a weakness for this world and its pageantry and it has also spoken to me because I believe that women are naturally submissive and want a man to control them - they just need to find the right man. I know that this opinion is not shared by a lot of women nowadays, but I also value the opinion of others that do not agree with me. I choose to live life this way and would never force another to make my choice.
I have written an article on slave positions already, but these did not include the beautiful Gorean positions, which my Master uses, even though we do not live this lifestyle as Goreans. The link to my first article on positions ishttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/958245/training_a_consensual_slave_or_submissive.html?cat=7 .
The Gorean positions and commands are as follows and I really hope that you find that you have a blessed journey with your new or not so new slave. These positions will help your slave find that space where you are the center of her/ his universe. These positions also make it physically easier for you to use your slave. Please remember that I am referring to consensual slaves here.
The first command is "nadu" which is the Gorean word for "kneel". This position can be done in two ways that only vary slightly. The slave is either crossing ankles, sitting on her heels with her back straight and shoulders straight, pushing her chest out proudly and spreading her legs as widely as possible with her palms facing upward and her eyes facing the floor. The variation on this position is not crossing the ankles with the rest of the position looking the same. This is also called the pleasure slave position and is not one that a white silk girl would normally do for anyone but her Master. A white silk girl is a girl who is still virgin and not available for use by any other but her Master. Seehttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/970034/gor_101_the_slave_silks.html?cat=7 for an explanation on slave silks.
The second command is called the tower slave position. This position is almost the same as nadu, but this is the one position a white silk slave or a tower slave would use to kneel. It is nadu but the slave's knees are together and her palms are facing downward. Tower slaves (slaves who do not serve sexually) also use this position. When I use the term "her", it is because most slaves on Gor are female only. There are few male pleasure slaves.
"Bara" or "belly" is one of my Master's favorite positions when he wants to bind me. This is also exactly what this position is for. The slave drops to her belly on the floor with her head turned to the left and her hands and ankles crossed for easy binding.
"Sula" (prone position) or "sula ki" (alternative sula) are positions used to ensure that a slave is awaiting her Master's sexual pleasure and use of her. The slave lies on her back with her palms up and her head turned to the left. Her legs are spread widely in anticipation of her Master's use in the first position and in the second one she raises her hips as if to invite him to use her even after the command was given to be in sula.
"Lesha" or binding position is when the slave is kneeling or standing with her back to her Master ready for binding. She will have her back straight and her shoulders back. Her head will be turned to the left in order for a leash to be attached to her collar. Her hands are behind her back in order for the Master to chain and restrain her. The word "Lesha" in Gorean means leash.
The collaring position or "kolar" is when the slave kneels in front of the Master with her hands stretched out before and her wrists crossed. Her head will be lower than her hands and she will be looking down.
The "whipping" position is one where the slave first assumes nadu with her hands in front of her and then bends forward with her head to the floor and her hair spread out in front of her to ensure that her back is completely open for punishment. The obedience position is when the slave lies flat on her stomach before the Master with her head turned to the left and kissing her Master's feet or shoes to show her submission and obedience.
The "leading" position is one that can be used extensively in training and/ or in humiliation play. The slave will bend at the waist with her head turned against the Master's hip and her hands behind her back in order to ensure that her hair or collar is available for her Master to lead her by. This ensures that the slave knows her place immediately.
"Assuming the modality of the she-quadruped" is another position that was used to make sure that a slave suddenly had a chance to remember her place. The slave drops to the floor on all fours with her head lowered and her behind stuck upward for her Master's pleasure. She performs all duties on her hands and knees and will only be allowed to manipulate any object with her mouth. This is a position that many slaves expressed a dislike for in the books.
Another common Gorean usage position is when a slave is ordered to the floor on her hands and knees with her head straight and eyes facing forward, while her bottom is stuck upward and her legs are spread in preparation for her Master's use.
All these positions can be found through out the books. Nothing in Gor is not based on the books. You might even find a few more in the books if you look closely. I only took a few that I could remember clearly. The fun is in exploring the books for more ways of using your slave.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

What About Black Conservatives?

What About Black Conservatives? March 25, 2010


So I was skimming through some websites, watching the hatred unfold in the comments section about the administration’s health care bill passing. As I mentioned before, it really irks me that somehow  black people are carrying the blame for anything Obama does– as if when this guy takes a shit, we’re there with baby-wipes.  It’s like stormfront.com has taken over every single forum imaginable. All of a sudden ALL black people are on welfare and spend food stamps on alcohol, all black people rely on Obama for EVERYTHING. Black people caused the housing crisis. They have BET? Why not CET? Of course all of this speech is insinuated, but very fucking obvious. So what’s with all this hatred? Well…
Anyway, someone posted a question on a Newsvine forum why you never see any black conservatives. There’s a lot of anger out there about why barely any black people voted for McCain and Palin. I would like to think of it as common sense, but to each his own. After all, black people identify more with conservatives when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Didn’t Abraham Lincoln free the slave sin 1865? Didn’t Republicans support Civil Rights when the Democrats supported segregation? Well — as someone pointed out, 1965 is over and done with. Marinate on this:
“Democrats did not win the support of black Americans nearly as much as republicans their disdain for black Americans. From Barry Goldwater’s “States Rights’ presidential campaign, to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, to Reagan’s announcing his candidacy for President in the hamlet that killed three civil rights workers and buried them in an earthen dam, to Reagan’s campaign against the proverbial “welfare queen”, to George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ads, to Jesse Helms’ “white hands” ads, to the Tennessee GOP’s “call me Harold” ads, to George W. Bush’s South Carolina push polling against John McCain, to Trent Lott’s assertion that America would have been better off with Strom Thurmond as president, republicans have cynically sought to leverage racial pique and animosity among whites to their electoral advantage on a consistent basis. There is no need to take my word for this, both Lee Atwater and Ken Mehlman both have confirmed this.
The result of this long-standing strategy is not surprising. Republicans dominate in the south. For every Robert Byrd who decided to change his mind about race rather than change his party, there are three Trent Lotts, Strom Thurmonds and Jesse Helms’ who decided to change their party rather than countenance the extension and enforcement of Constitutional guarantees to and on behalf of black people. This near half-century of telling the tragically obtuse among the electorate who to hate, who to resent and who to envy has had a clear and lasting effect. Now, many republicans simply can’t help themselves; reacting with predictability on race that is matched only by Pavlov’s dog. Just a handful of incidents during the short “Age of Obama” bears this out clearly:
  1. The Republican National Committee developed a fundraising campaign with the specific and explicit intention of stoking fear of President Obama
  2. A picture on the Republican National Committee’s Facebook page featured President Obama eating what looks to be a piece of fried chicken with a caption that read “Miscegenation is a crime against American values”.
  3. When she thought she was out of the range of a microphone, Ohio republican Representative Jean Schmidt told a “birther” that she agrees with her, calling into question whether some folks believe their own denials about the impact of race in these debates.
  4. US Representative Lynn Jenkins shared that the GOP was looking for “a great white hope” to counter President Obama.
  5. Congressman Jim Clyburn’s congressional office was vandalized with a swastika.
  6. Congressman David Scott shared racially charged hate mail he received during the health care debate.
  7. Mississippi republican State Senator Lydia Chassaniol gave a keynote address to the Council of Conservative Citizens – an organization with a well-documented history of racism – saying that “seeing you gives me hope”.
  8. In the midst of her campaign for Chair of the Young Republicans Organization, Audra Shay, cheer-led racist comments on her Facebook page. She was re-elected.
  9. Michelle Bachmann led other republican politicians in blaming the entire financial meltdown on – you guessed it – racial minorities when she stated that the mortgage debacle that ignited the global crisis was caused by loans “being made on the basis of race and little else”.
  10. Minnesota State Senate Candidate Mike Parry calls President Obama “a power hungry arrogant black man”. He apparently prefers his black men unambitious and docile. He won the republican endorsement of his candidacy.
  11. Republicans in San Bernadino County published a newsletter that included “Obama Bucks”, a food-stamp with pictures of watermelon, fried chicken, ribs and Kool-Aid surrounding a picture of the President.
  12. A republican mayor in California distributed e-mails featuring a watermelon patch in the foreground of the White House.
  13. A South Carolina republican activist shared on his Facebook page that an escaped gorilla was an ancestor of First Lady Michelle Obama.
  14. The Tennessee Republican party distributed a collage featuring pictures of Presidents of the United States, depicting President Obama as two eyes peering out of a black background.
  15. Adam LaDuca, at the time executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page that then candidate Senator Obama has “a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami.”
  16. The GOP chairman of New Mexico’s Bernalillo County said “The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors,” he said. “African-Americans came here as slaves” and that “Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.”
  17. A republican City Councilman enjoyed racist e-mails regarding the President and the First Lady so much that he thought everyone should have the same fun he was having. So he distributed and forwarded “jokes” that compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that “n@!$%r rigs” should now be called “presidential solutions.”
  18. Chip Saltsman, former chair of the Tennessee republicans and candidate for Chairman of the Republican National Committee, distributed a CD containing the song “Barack the Magic Negro”.
These are just a few of the incidents in the last year and a half committed just by people associated with the national or local republican party. This does not include the vile offerings from the legion of hate media talking heads or the garbage that passes for discourse on blog-sites like this.
Face it, Perunap. Republicans have been crapping on Abraham Lincoln’s grave since 1965. Your post and perspective that black people are somehow “duped” is offensive in the extreme and indicative of an abject ignorance of historical fact. People like you attempt to urinate on the heads of black Americans and swear it is merely rain.” –dwillie
To see more of this debate, click here.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Stuff I like....

Okay....so I know that peanut butter is not exactly the food of choice for losing weight, but I love the stuff. Besides, like most everything else, it's not the food that's bad for you so much as the quantity of the food you eat. Peanut butter is a good source of protein and fiber. It has a lot of fat...hence the need to moderate yourself with a bit of common sense. I'm particularly fond of the Natural Jif (crunchy of course) because it is very low in sodium and contains no high fructose corn syrup.

Yes, it's got a lot of fat. Yes, it's high in calories. Yes, it's one of those processed foods that I railed against in an earlier post.

But it's damn good. If I have to give up eating good stuff just to be skinny...quite frankly....I'd rather be fat. I'm pretty sure there is a way to have both. 
 

Pro:
-nutrient dense food that requires no preparation and is tasty and filling
-natural ingredients and low salt content and no HFC syrup
-no need to stir; most natural peanut butter looks like brown snot and quickly goes rancid

Con:
-this is NOT a low fat product, they make low fat PB but it tastes like mud (actually, I have a more vulgar descriptive label..but you get the idea)
-not good if you have a peanut allergy 

Awsome pussies


Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Humor - Peta Protest for lack of oral sex....


ETA PROTESTS LACK OF ORAL SEX:

"Animals Get Eaten More Than We Do," Say Nude Women

Whachington: (IP)
Wearing nothing but body paint and fake ears, angry women staged dozens of protests around the nation today, crouching on busy sidewalks in tiny wire cages cute naked girl in a cage painted like a tigerafter painting tiger stripes on their otherwise nude bodies. Shouting slogans and arguments at passers-by, the women, members of People for Eating Tasty Animals (PETA), were protesting what they call "the persistantnude caged woman painted like a catand invidious male failure to lick pussy, give head, or go muff diving."
The unprecedented display of public nudity was intended, according to PETA spokes-woman Ima Hornay, to shock complacent men into reconsidering their routine failure to deliver oral sex. "Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue nude ebony cat woman locked in a cagebetter than a naked woman in a cage," she said. "We believe that the shock value of public nudity and the exposure of our bodies to public scrutiny is the naked PETA protestor exposed in a cage on a public streetonly way to convince men that we are deadly serious about this cause and that we won't rest until we get the cunt licking we deserve."
Hornay explained that male excuses for not providing oral sex are, in her view, inexcusably weak. "Men say we don't smell good, or we don't taste good. But have you seen some of nude PETA protestor does caged public nudity and body paintthe things men willeat? Men go hunting all the time, and the smelly animals they drag back get eaten more than we do! We are here to demand that they get over it, and get back to giving us the oral pleasure we deserve. Our message is that women taste good!"really cute cat girl crouches bare in her wire cage
Other protesters were even more blunt. "My husband is always pushing my head down toward his dick," complained Nita Fashel, "but he hasn't licked my pussy since before we were married. That's unacceptable to me. I came out here today to help spread the word in the only language men understand: blonde tiger girl crouches nude in her cage under the hot sunlots of beautiful tits and ass on public display in cages!"
However, many of the people who witnessed the protests appeared confused by the caged animal imagery. "Why are all these hot babes painted to look like tigers?" asked one otherwise enthusiastic young man. "I mean, is it a beastiality naked caged tiger woman gives a pretty smilething? Or what? I don't get it, but I like it."
The confining wire cages also bewildered most observers. One young woman asked one of the caged nude tiger women "Why are you putting yourself on display like a helpless pet in a kennel? Are you trying to get men to collar you and leash you and teach you to jump through hoops on command? Do you want to be kept in cages? Animals are like slaves, is that the status you want for women? Don't you think nude tiger girl sisters crouch naked in their parking lot cagesthe humiliation of such public nakedness will prevent men from taking you seriously?"
Most of the men witnessing the protest, however, seemed to be taking voyeuristic pleasure pleasure in the event, rather than being persuaded of the points PETA nude tiger girl with pretty boobs claws at her cagehoped to make. "If these babes think that getting naked, painting themselves like Cat Woman, locking themselves in cages, and showing off their yummy stuff on the street is gonna make me lick more cunt, they have another think coming! If women weren't so damn stingy about sucking cock, they'd probably sultry chained naked tiger girl lounges naked on the straw behind the heavy
				iron bars of her animal cageget a lot more head themselves."
Police arrested two ambitious young men who attempted to lift an occupied cage into the back of their pickup truck. sexy nude tiger woman writhes against the heavy cold steel bars of
				her animal cage"Since this tiger chick was shouting about licking pussy, we thought we'd take her home and start with her," one of the men is reported to have told police. There were no other arrests, although several of the caged women complained of being goosed through the bars and one claimed she was attacked by a man wielding a large rubber tongue on a stick.

"Animals Get Eaten More Than We Do," Say Nude Women

Whachington: (IP)
Wearing nothing but body paint and fake ears, angry women staged dozens of protests around the nation today, crouching on busy sidewalks in tiny wire cages cute naked girl in a cage painted like a tigerafter painting tiger stripes on their otherwise nude bodies. Shouting slogans and arguments at passers-by, the women, members of People for Eating Tasty Animals (PETA), were protesting what they call "the persistantnude caged woman painted like a catand invidious male failure to lick pussy, give head, or go muff diving."
The unprecedented display of public nudity was intended, according to PETA spokes-woman Ima Hornay, to shock complacent men into reconsidering their routine failure to deliver oral sex. "Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue nude ebony cat woman locked in a cagebetter than a naked woman in a cage," she said. "We believe that the shock value of public nudity and the exposure of our bodies to public scrutiny is the naked PETA protestor exposed in a cage on a public streetonly way to convince men that we are deadly serious about this cause and that we won't rest until we get the cunt licking we deserve."
Hornay explained that male excuses for not providing oral sex are, in her view, inexcusably weak. "Men say we don't smell good, or we don't taste good. But have you seen some of nude PETA protestor does caged public nudity and body paintthe things men willeat? Men go hunting all the time, and the smelly animals they drag back get eaten more than we do! We are here to demand that they get over it, and get back to giving us the oral pleasure we deserve. Our message is that women taste good!"really cute cat girl crouches bare in her wire cage
Other protesters were even more blunt. "My husband is always pushing my head down toward his dick," complained Nita Fashel, "but he hasn't licked my pussy since before we were married. That's unacceptable to me. I came out here today to help spread the word in the only language men understand: blonde tiger girl crouches nude in her cage under the hot sunlots of beautiful tits and ass on public display in cages!"
However, many of the people who witnessed the protests appeared confused by the caged animal imagery. "Why are all these hot babes painted to look like tigers?" asked one otherwise enthusiastic young man. "I mean, is it a beastiality naked caged tiger woman gives a pretty smilething? Or what? I don't get it, but I like it."
The confining wire cages also bewildered most observers. One young woman asked one of the caged nude tiger women "Why are you putting yourself on display like a helpless pet in a kennel? Are you trying to get men to collar you and leash you and teach you to jump through hoops on command? Do you want to be kept in cages? Animals are like slaves, is that the status you want for women? Don't you think nude tiger girl sisters crouch naked in their parking lot cagesthe humiliation of such public nakedness will prevent men from taking you seriously?"
Most of the men witnessing the protest, however, seemed to be taking voyeuristic pleasure pleasure in the event, rather than being persuaded of the points PETA nude tiger girl with pretty boobs claws at her cagehoped to make. "If these babes think that getting naked, painting themselves like Cat Woman, locking themselves in cages, and showing off their yummy stuff on the street is gonna make me lick more cunt, they have another think coming! If women weren't so damn stingy about sucking cock, they'd probably sultry chained naked tiger girl lounges naked on the straw behind the heavy
				iron bars of her animal cageget a lot more head themselves."
Police arrested two ambitious young men who attempted to lift an occupied cage into the back of their pickup truck. sexy nude tiger woman writhes against the heavy cold steel bars of
				her animal cage"Since this tiger chick was shouting about licking pussy, we thought we'd take her home and start with her," one of the men is reported to have told police. There were no other arrests, although several of the caged women complained of being goosed through the bars and one claimed she was attacked by a man wielding a large rubber tongue on a stick.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Conservatism in Question

Conservatism in Question


She's a Conservative
What is conservatism's place in the theatre? How do we relate to it? How do we deal with it? And if conservatism exists in the audience, must we talk to them?
These questions and more are occupying a lot blogular real estate this week, mainly as a result of one entry on the Impending Theatrical Blogging Event blog (which we've addressed with the help of the comments here).
Laura Axelrod got pulled in by the geographically political undertow of the ongoing debate at the ITBE and responded on her Gasp! blog:
I’m not sure what Red State Theater is, exactly. Personally, I’d like to have the biggest audience possible for my work, without compromising my vision. Shouting that Democrats or Republicans suck is going to defeat my purpose. Unless, that is my purpose. KnowwhatImean?
In the comments, she and Nick from Rat Sass discuss the possibility that conservatives are filling the houses at Broadway shows, which seems extraordinarily likely, especially in the case of the so-called jukebox musicals which are so "conservative" in content that they don't even bother with new music, much less new thought.
You can follow the thread from there to Adam Szymkowicz, who's trying to figure out why there's not more "conservative" theatre.
In some ways conservative theatre is an oxymoron ... which is not to say it doesn't exist, just that the word conservative doesn't go with the idea of theatre.
Jump from there to Frank's Wild Lunch, where Kyle dissects other ways that conservatism manifests itself in theatre.
... theater artists pander to audiences in all kinds of ways, either by cloaking their racy subversive ideas in more palatable forms, or by omitting them for fear they won't be accepted.
A nice follow-up to the whole thing, especially if you've been following the ongoing conflict between Scott Walters of Theatre Ideas and, well, a lot of other people (especially Joshua James down below), is Scott's posting of an email exchange with Isaac of Parabasis, who was involved at the ITBE. Here's an excerpt.
I think challenge is absolutely necessary for a community to grow. Theatre shouldn't exist simply to deepen social bonds by reinforcing already-agreed-upon ideas. Although such deepening DOES serve an important purpose, and is part of what a theatre should do.

Thoughts?

Comments (2)


Conservatism is nothing more than an idea, right?
So if your post is, what's IDEA'S place in theatre, I'd say it's vitally important, right?
Because, along with emotion and experience, IDEAS are a prime ingredient to great theatre.
If you ask, what is the VALUE of conservatisim as an IDEA . . . then you're going to get different answers dependent upon who you're asking.
My postion was, conservatism isn't the only idea, nor is it one that has value, as far as I'm concerned, though I'd never tell anyone they shouldn't explore it for themselves.
That's the thing about ideas . . . you put them up for examination and they either fly or they don't, sometimes both at once . . .
So I'd say conservatism has a place as an idea to be examined . . .
Now, as a rule or guideline to be followed, conservatisim isn't something I'd recommend . . . why censor ourselves to only one idea . . .
I'm just musing on your question, Matthew, throwing things out there.

I always get a bad taste in my mouth when I see women, who are 53 per cent of the population, called a "minority". Ah well. Nice to see they're being unmarginalised through a variant on the wet t-short competition. How nice for us.
Conservative is a tricky word these days. Think about its etymological relationship to the word "conservation".

Monday, July 6, 2009

Feminists Misconceptions of Gor and Gorean lifestyle



Feminists Misconceptions of Gor and Gorean lifestyle


As most of you know, there is some controversy over John Norman's Chronicles of Gor series, but is it deserved? The most common accusation we hear is that John Norman is a misogynist who advocates the subjugation, physical abuse, enslavement, and rape of women. Another common complaint is that John Norman's books are poorly written trash with no literary merit whatsoever. As the title of this essay suggests, I believe these unfavorable characterizations are due to misconceptions about John Norman, his purpose in writing the Gorean saga, and the books themselves.

Let's look at the word misogynist. The most common definition of the word is, "One who hates women."1

Could a man that truly despises women write loving and poetic passages like these?


"Human females are such rich and wonderful creatures. Their sexual life, and feelings, are subtle, complex and deep. How naive is the man who believes that having sex with a woman is so little or brief a thing as to fall within the parameters of a horizontal plane, the simple stimulations of a skin, the results attendant upon a simplistic manual dexterity. How woefully ignorant are the engineers of sexuality. How much to learn have even her artists and poets! Women are so inordinately precious. They are so sensitive, so beautiful, so intelligent and needful. No man has yet counted the dimensions of a woman's love. Who can measure the horizons of her heart? Few things, I suspect, are more real than those which seem most intangible."2

"How subtle and deep was the intelligence of women, I thought. How much they know. How much they can sense. How simple and crude, how naive, sometimes seems the intelligence of men compared to the intelligence of women. What deep and wonderful creatures they are. Who can truly understand the emotional depths and needs, eons old, of these flowers of nature and evolution? How natural, then, it is, that the truly loving man will concern himself not with her distortions and perversions, ultimately barren, but with her emotional and sensuous truths, ancient and deep within her, with what might be called her biological and natural fulfillment."3

It seems to me that those who accuse John Norman of misogyny have either never read the Gor books or have given them only the most cursory examination.

What about the claims that John Norman advocates the subjugation, physical abuse, enslavement, and rape of women? Perhaps the following quote will help dispel those misconceptions.

"The fact, of course, that rape is a common sexual fantasy of women does not indicate that women, in any general sense, wish to be raped. They would surely, at the very least, wish to choose the time and the place, and the circumstances and the man. Rape, as a sociological reality, is commonly an ugly, brutal, unpleasant, sickening, horrifying, vicious act. It degrades the man and it doesn't do the woman much good either. Not only does she receive little or no pleasure, but the whole affair has no more intrinsic worth or dignity than a mugging. Further, sadly, she is likely to be brutalized and, at the least, intimidated. This is to take advantage of a weaker creature, who cannot adequately, in most cases, defend herself. The rapist, unless there are some extenuating factors, such as severe mental illness, scarcely comes up to scratch for a human being. To pick on a woman, because she is smaller and weaker, is much the same thing as to pick on a child or animal; or, it is much the same thing as a young man striking an old man; or a large, strong man beating a small, weak man; it is just something that it is not worthy to do. It is not that it need be a "sick" thing to do, though doubtless in some cases it is; it is rather that there is just no manhood in it."4

Norman appears to have a pretty low opinion of anyone that would actually, subjugate, abuse, or rape a woman.

So what was Norman's purpose in writing the Gorean saga? I imagine one purpose was to earn a little extra money in order to better support his family or perhaps to see if he could write a heroic fantasy in the tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but the main purpose seems to have been providing a satirical counterpoint to the more extreme rhetoric of radical feminists.

Those of you who grew up in the 60's, 70's & 80's will no doubt be familiar with the following extraordinary statements:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."5

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men."6

"We name orgasm as the epistemological mark of the sexual, and we therefore criticise it too as oppressive to women."7

It was comments like these that Norman sought to lampoon. The radical feminists equated romantic love and marriage with slavery, so the only romantic relationships Norman explores in detail in the books are, of course, with slaves. The most extreme feminists categorize all sex as rape, so Norman repeatedly has eager and willing slaves beg their masters for "slave rape". Lastly, female orgasm is claimed to be "oppressive to women", so the "oppressed" slave is described as having the most immediate and powerful sexual and orgasmic responses. Clearly Norman is using slavery as a metaphor in order to explore the absurdity of radical feminist dogma.

Norman is hardly the only author to use a distasteful metaphor to explore more deeply into the human psyche. Nancy Springer invariably castrates at least one male character in nearly every book she writes, but are there hordes of people claiming that Ms. Springer is "advocating" the castration of men? Of course not, most people understand that she uses castration to explore the nature of manhood. Was there a huge outcry against Sheri S. Tepper for "advocating" eugenics in her book, The Gate to Women's Country? Or for portraying men as naturally disposed towards violence and war? No - it's obvious to people that Tepper is exploring the ethical and emotional consequences of selective breeding and secrecy. It's a shame that Mr. Norman isn't accorded the same understanding.

Most of you know that John Norman has a PhD. in philosophy, but what is less well known is that he also has a graduate degree in classical history. Norman puts all of his education to work in his novels. He borrows from classical history not only to build the various cultures found on Gor, but also in various allusions to classical mythology. A few more obvious examples are Norman's reference to Beowulf8, the Ring of Gyges9, and to the Gordian Knot10 & Alexander11 (both directly and obliquely).

And, of course, Norman also uses his degree in philosophy to good effect - regularly exploring such concepts as honor, courage, duty, being true to oneself, and love - especially true love - which Mr. Norman recommends highly.

"Many people, of course, fear love, doubtlessly rightly, for love is a vast, tender, profound, binding instinct, which makes great differences in those lives it floods. The human being is both a single organism and a double organism. The human being consists either of a man or a woman, or the two in love. It is natural for the single organism in each of us to fight for its independence, its freedom to be self-seeking and selfish, and self-striving. But it is natural, too, for the single organism to desire its completion in the mated pair. The matter can be argued subtly but those who have been touched by love, usually briefly, have no doubt as to its superiority. Love, once tasted, is in no danger of ever again being regarded as inferior to egotism. Those who have tried both, and we have all tried the latter, would, were it possible, choose the former."12

There will always be those that refuse to see the truth about John Norman and his books, but as Norman says:

"Truth is a strange thing.
There is a danger in seeking it, for one might find it.
That one does not like a truth does not make it false.
How few people understand that!
But there are many sorts of truths, as there are flowers and beasts. Some truths are hard and cold, and sharp, and if one touches them one might cut oneself and bleed. Some truths are like dark stones which do little more that exist unnoticed; others are green with the glow of life, like moist grass rustling in the morning sun/ some truths are like frowns; and some are like smiles. Some are friendly; others are hostile; and, in both cases, their nature is just what it is, not what they may be said to be. Politics is not the arbiter of truth; it may be the arbiter of comfort, safety, conformity, and success, but it is not the arbiter of truth; the arbiter of truth is the world and nature; they have the last say in these matters.
Many may wish it were not the case; and many will pretend it is not the case; but it is, for better or for worse, the case.
Truth does not care whether it is believed or not; similarly, stone walls and cliffs do not care whether they are noted or not; so then let us leave it to the individual to do as he thinks best. Truth, the stone wall, the cliff, are not enemies; but they are real."13

All copyright to this essay, in all languages, formats, and media throughout the world are and will continue to be the exclusive property of the author. You may not, without the prior written permission of the author, copy, modify, reproduce, republish, post, distribute, transmit, or use this essay for commercial or other purposes, provided, however, that you may save one copy to your own hard drive for your own personal reference.

Copyright © 2007 LemuelB. All rights reserved.



1 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved, © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company
2 Blood Brothers of Gor © 1982 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 181-182
3 IBID - page 286
4 Imaginative Sex © 1974 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 52-53
5 Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism - "Marriage" (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973 - page 219
6 Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989
7 Judith Levine commenting on a document from Women Against Sex: A Southern Women's Writing Collective - Sex Resistance in Heterosexual Arrangements, 1987
8 Marauders of Gor © 1975 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 281-282
9 Explorers of Gor © 1979 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 29
10 Assassin of Gor © 1970 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 55
11 Magicians of Gor © 1988 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 64
12 Imaginative Sex © 1974 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 16
13 Witness of Gor © 2001 by John Norman, New World Publishers - page 586

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Meeting my Sir

First off I want to point out that this tale of extreme happiness is brought to you under the orders of my Sir... which may give you a bit of insight into where Kris and I are at this point. This story, though, is mostly about how we got here...
I never intended to fall in love with Kris, he was a hookup.
I was between jobs, still am as a matter of fact, and had way too much spare time on my hands. This lead to me looking for people to talk to during the day since all of my friends were working and were unavailable to entertain/amuse/keep me company. Mostly I used Grindr and Recon since I had no problem with the occasional hookup and I enjoyed kink probably about as much as anyone else reading r/BDSM. I initially encountered Kris on Grindr, we talked and it was nice but I got distracted by something shiny (I do that sometimes) and we lost touch. I encountered him again on Recon but I don't tend to talk to very many people on Recon because the moment you start a conversation with me and call me 'boy' I'm gone (On a side note, why would a stranger call another stranger they've never met 'boy'? It's not like they know me, hell I may not be into any of that... but time and time again, there it is.). I didn't immediately put two and two together until Kris changed his profile on Grindr to 'Shameless Spandex Pervert' which did two things: one, it made me laugh like a gibbon monkey, and two it made me very interested.
I'm not really a spandex guy but I love someone who can be open with their kinks so we can both get off on their kinks. So, while I wasn't HUGE into spandex, I loved to see Kris put on spandex and get all giddy and happy that he was feeding his kink which, in turn, made me get an supernatural fondness for the stuff. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Kris and I decided to meet up and we hooked up the first night (remember, this was never supposed to be dating). The funny thing about a hookup is that usually you don't stay the night, but I did, usually you don't make out much or compliment each other a lot, but we did, usually you don't cuddle up and when you wake up miraculously discover that you never stopped holding each other, but we did. This wasn't the plan, and Kris was leaving in a few months, but it was nice so we went with it.
Over the course of the next few months Kris and I explored our respective kinks. His fondness (understatement of the year) for spandex rubbed off on me and my fondness for bondage, S/m, and M/s worked it's way under his skin. I'm not a total sub but I prefer to be treated a bit like a pet or sexual object once and a while and Kris did his best to comply. The tough part though was that Kris is an incredibly compassionate human being and lover, it took some doing to get him to understand my need to be occasionally dominated (though he was fine with me dominating him) despite being a top and having the tendencies for sure; he just suppressed them I think. I shared with him much of the porn that I found alluring as sort of a rough guide of what turned me on and he jumped on it. Kris, who had never really acted out on his Dom side, suddenly was learning knots to tie me up, putting spandex hoods on me to blind me, and going to great lengths to drive me sexually wild.
Sometime around then Kris and I realized that we matched each other. Not necessarily kink-wise (but by golly we were getting there) but personality wise, we agreed on practically everything and thought much the same way about things. This man, who was supposed to be just a hook up, had worked his way well past the barriers I usually put between myself and hook-ups and we were both very much in love.
Then came the hard part. You see Kris lives across the country normally and was only in town for a few months... at some point he needed to go home. I was not one for long distance relationships where I could see no end - I'd been there and done that and I wasn't keen on trying it again. So the hardest day of my life came when Kris got on that plane and flew away... we wept.
We kept in touch and I promised to visit him but I had decided to go back to school and so I couldn't simply move out to be with him... could I?
Yes, I could.
After some discussion it was decided that Kris would move here in January after his contracts were up and I would move there until September. With a future and a plan in hand the two of us continued to talk and keep in touch. We talked about what our life together would be like, how awesome it would be when I was there, and how incredible it will be when he comes here and we are finally and permanently together. I've never had these kinds of discussions in my life; I am still amazed at how easy and natural they feel.
I fly to Kris in three days. The last week has involved some serious D/s with Kris dictating that I stay chaste for the week before I arrive and daily assignments of submission to his desires, of which this memoir is one of them. I'm more than happy to follow where Kris points, knowing now that he is getting off on it just as much as I am. Since we are both switches I look forward to turning the tables on him and sharing my own sexual deviousness with him when I arrive (bugger just got there first!).
I am marvellously in love with the man I'm calling Sir - not because he is my Sir but because he is incredible. We are equals and we give and take from our relationship equally. I am proud to own him just as he is proud to own me right back.

very sweet! Glad you two were able to learn and love together (no matter the distance).